Clandestine removal and undervaluation support excise duty demand when classification is already settled against the assessee.

Clandestine removal and undervaluation of excisable goods were treated as proved, and the absence of rebuttal left the adjudication findings intact. The classification dispute did not defeat the demand because decorative laminate sheets had already been placed under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the central excise duty demand in the show cause notice was sustained, reflecting the principle that proved suppression and a settled adverse classification support confirmation of duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty on the goods cleared by the respondents clandestinely and undervalued was payable, and whether the classification dispute prevented confirmation of the demand.

Analysis: The finding in the adjudication order that the allegations of clandestine manufacture, removal, and undervaluation were proved remained unrebutted, as no cross-objection was filed and the respondents did not appear. The classification issue was held to be settled by the Supreme Court, which placed decorative laminate sheets under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. On that basis, the duty demand raised in the show cause notice was found sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand of central excise duty was upheld and the appeal was allowed in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where clandestine removal and undervaluation are proved and the classification of the goods is settled against the assessee, the excise duty demand is liable to be confirmed.

---